Case Digest (G.R. No. 189698)
Facts:
In Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, petitioners Quinto and Tolentino, both incumbent appointive officials, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court on December 1, 2009, challenging the constitutionality of the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369 (amending Republic Act No. 8436), Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881), and Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678. The December 1 Decision declared those provisions unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and for overbreadth, thereby permitting appointive officials to remain in office even after filing certificates of candidacy. On December 15, 2009, the COMELEC moved for reconsideration, joined by intervenors including Senators Manuel Roxas and Franklin Drilon, and candidate Tom Apacible (the IBP–Cebu City Chapter’s motion was denied for lack of a substantial interest).Case Digest (G.R. No. 189698)
Facts:
- Background and Parties
- Petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino Jr. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
- They challenged as unconstitutional:
- The second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369 (deeming appointive officials resigned upon filing their certificate of candidacy).
- Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) (same deemed-resigned rule).
- Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 (mirroring the above rules in connection with the May 10, 2010 elections).
- Assailed Decision and Reconsideration Motions
- On December 1, 2009, the Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring the three provisions unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and for overbreadth.
- Between December 2009 and January 2010, COMELEC and various intervenors (Senators Roxas and Drilon, IBP-Cebu Chapter, Tom V. Apacible) filed motions for reconsideration and/or intervention.
Issues:
- Procedural Issues
- Was COMELEC’s motion for reconsideration timely and properly filed?
- Were the motions for reconsideration-in-intervention by third parties permissible after judgment?
- Substantive Issues
- Do Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678, Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, and the second proviso of Section 13 of RA 9369 violate the equal protection clause by treating appointive and elective officials differently?
- Are these provisions unconstitutionally overbroad in prohibiting all appointive officials from running, regardless of their position’s influence or the election’s partisan character?
- Does the State have a compelling interest that justifies these restrictions on appointive officials?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)